As well as having the main game for the next Ghost Recon be alot more realistic and open than the GRAW series ( no offence to the Devs ) I think there is alot of people who will want an even harder and more realism based game mode. Apart from map design what features should be added or removed to make this the best it can be?

I'd say:

No reticule

Slower running speed

Fpv or Fpwv only

Massive accuracy and movement penalities for being hit.

Bleed out for torso hits after X amount of time.

Deafness when near an explosion, including inability to hear team mates over Xbox Live.

Higer Recoil

Massive accuracy penalty when moving

Gun jamming

Higher damage,head or upper torso shots kill in 1 shot.

Bullet droppage and windage, also the need to zero your scope for snipers

Weapon scope sway

No team Ids

No radar

No Markers

Weight considerations when picking equipement.

Forced Multi Roles in team

No tracer unless tracer ammo is picked

No Medic system

Slower movement through water, bushes, mud etc

Greater lethality radius on explosives

I admire your dedication to the old recon ways Paladin. Let's see if the devs listen. They haven't since GRIT, but you never know.

Some of those things are really down to one's opinion. I'll quote and comment...

No reticule - I believe it's more realistic to have a reticule. Although one that loans itself to lesser accuracy would be better.

Slower running speed - I don't necessarily believe the console version saw your running speed as being too high. It basically should be the speed your average fit soldier with heaps of gear can run... whatever that may be.

Fpv or Fpwv only - I would agree, but there'd have to be 'tools' to make up for an unrealisticly limited field of view.

Massive accuracy and movement penalities for being hit - Yes and no. Minor wounds will hamper each. After a minor would is attended to by a medic you should be able to carry on, but hampered as you say. Any direct hit to an arm or leg should pretty much see you out of the fight.

Bleed out for torso hits after X amount of time - Also for arms and legs I say. Torso hits, which penetrate body armour, should effectively incapacitate you and you 'die'. If a wound is bad enough that you bleed out there's not way you can fight effectively and may as well restart.

Deafness when near an explosion, including inability to hear team mates over Xbox Live - I tend to agree. Although I think so much more could be done in any game regarding audio that goes beyond just these basic ideas.

Higer Recoil - Depends on A) whether we're limiting discussion to just GRAW console as the example, or B) talking about specific weapons. Most modern weapons featured in these games have amazingly little real-life recoil.

Massive accuracy penalty when moving - Depends on the speed. It's not hard to move and shoot accurately. Of course large penalties should apply while running, but walking should suffer only ever-so-slightly sluggish movement.

Gun jamming - Only if it's once per like 5 engagements (read: missions), depending on the weapon and environmental conditions.

Higher damage,head or upper torso shots kill in 1 shot - dependant on body armour of course, but assult rifle shots should pretty much always do this at close range.

Bullet droppage and windage, also the need to zero your scope for snipers - Definitely. But to take real advantage of this the engagment ranges need to be expanded. This stuff doesn't make a huge difference at the ranges you typically see in GRAW2.

Weapon scope sway - I think I know what you mean by this. I'm not sure. Until I get a better idea I won't comment.

No team Ids, No radar, No Markers - For the modern battlefield I'd say that's pretty much right.

Weight considerations when picking equipement - As long as the weight influences your overall encumbrance and is not just say an arbitary weight limit, I would consider it realistic.

Forced Multi Roles in team - Not sure what you mean.

No tracer unless tracer ammo is picked - Doesn't fall under the banner of realism/hardcore so much as it does 'it would be nice to have the choice'.

No Medic system - Kinda ties into the 'torso hits' point and anything else wound-related. Without a medic system it only lends to less realistic gameplay if you suffer just a limp after being shot in the leg and you don't get medical help before bleeding out.

Slower movement through water, bushes, mud etc - I'd agree with that.

Greater lethality radius on explosives - Generally yes, I agree. But it still comes down to the type of explosive used and where.

BTw the way is the same Longjocks from the OFP forums. Great to get a good discussion going and you have some valid points. But I definately dont understand how a reticule is more realistic than iron sights.

To clear weapon swaying is the reticule moving in a slightly erractic pattern when zoomed in. And forced multi roles means that say in a team of 8, 2 need to take snipers, 2 riflemen, 2 grenadiers and 2 support.

Basically the whole reticule idea, one which I have discussed before in forums such as OFP (yes, I'm that guy ), comes from it being a tool that takes over for our natural sense of balance and hand-eye coordination.

In real life we can naturally aim something such as a rifle at another object at close range with reasonable accuracy without having to use sights. At medium and long ranges there's not much of a chance we'd hit our target, however we can aquire a target visually and bring our ironsight/scope up to bear naturally and very quickly.

Replicating this latter point in games is difficult when certain factors are introduced. Most games zoom when going into the sight view. The realism aspects of this alone can be argued, but it is a separate point. The point is that it does happen and if you don't have the enemy centered when you zoom you may not see them and you will have to reaquire your target. This means panning your view, possibly in the wrong direction, or 'unzooming' to try again. All precious seconds wasted and getting you killed.

For games where the aiming of your weapon is centered on the screen the above point isn't as big an issue as most of use have a good idea, once again through our natural senses, where the centre of the screen is. Although various factors can skew this sense. More unique systems like the bounding area of moving your weapon in games like OFP and ArmA make the reticule more necessary as it's just too hard know where you're aiming when you choose to apply the sights.

Essentially, an aiming reticule should be included as an artificial way of adding one's natural hand-eye coordination. But this reticule should be very limited in accuracy. Something like ArmA's is good, as long as it doesn't have the dot showing where your gun is actually aiming. Make it a little wider, and maybe slightly below centre, and you can easily hit something at close range as needed while hitting ranged targets becomes difficult, forcing you to use you scope, yet without you having to reaquire.

Once again using OFP/ArmA as a reference, the idea of having a physical model in your first person view, where your rounds come out of the actual barrel of your rifle rather than from the centre of the screen, means that a reticule is even less accurate. It's a basic geometry/perspective thing where your reticule is not sensitive to the distance of the object it is covering. I've seen games with such dynamic reticules but find them more annoying than helpful for the most part. Anyway, the static reticule with a bullet trajectory that begins down and to your right means that your reticule will never be accurate at varying ranges anyway. The reticule and trajectory would probably be naturally zeroed so your shots are accurate at a certain range, but that's it. If that is taken into account and it's zeroed at say 25 metres, then all other shots beyond that range can be rendered somewhat useless while still allowing you to have the aforementioned ability to aquire targets for using your scope.

It might seem like a simple issue, reticule or no reticule, but it can actually be a complex one. This applies to most ideas, such as some in the above list, where so many factors can go into making something work, and work to an individual's perceived notion of realism.

The only two problems I have with the above list are forced multiroles and no medic system. If GR were a game like AA I would agree that there should be a forced team structure, but we are playing as the Ghosts and I belive they would be able to choose what they want. I think it would be a nice server side setting though.

I also think that medics should be included, but only to stop blood loss. The medic wouldn't be able to bring people back from the dead or restore health, but if a player wanted to survive after taking a bad hit they would need a medic to stop the bleeding.

I would also add that we need a more realistic health system. If you get shot in the leg, you should limp. If you get shot in both legs or the knee, you shouldn't be able to walk. One shot in the arm should have an accuracy penalty, but if you get shot in the arm a few times you should have to go to just using a pistol with the other hand, along with a bleeding out system.

I would also like to see the system for commanding your team form OGR brought back and revised to give even more options. I would really like to see formations in the command system along the lines of ArmA.

I also want stealth to be a viable option again. I hated playing GRAW2 and being spotted 100 yards away while I'm behind cover. I should be able to go past enemies if I'm good enough, of course this can't really be done with a linear game.

I also don't want enemies to stick out so much. In GRAW2 and most shooters it is really easy to spot enemies. I was just playing GRIT a couple of days ago and I realised how I was always thinking about getting shot from where I didn't expect it. This of course led to much more tactical gameplay. I would always set up the other team to cover my team while I was moving.

Another thing I'm not sure about is the supression system. This came up in the GB forums and both sides had some good points. I would like to know what everyone thinks about a supression system. Should one even be included? If so, what should it be, should the screen blur or should the weapon shake?

For supressions 2 ideas spring to mind. Thye basic one were you screen shakes violently and maybe your reticule disappears when under fire.

Or

Your accuracy disappears, similar to the method used in Americas Army.

Personally I'd prefer the first. And lonjocks good post about the reticule but I still disagree. I think that if you play without a reticule then you will automatically adjust and know where the centre of your screen is. Im not a good player but I can easily pull off close range kills on COD 4 hardcore with no reticule. I just feel that having no reticule benefits tactical gameplay and prevents rambo style run and gun.

No reticule

I agree no reticule on screen when your not scoped in!

Slower running speed

Slower running w/ respect to the enemy you see in your scope or through TPV - yes. They run way too fast - ice skating so to speak. But your character as you see it runs as a good speed.

Fpvor Fpwv only

I like the TPV because you see more of the field which is crucial for Outdoor encounters as in real life. What they need to do is code it where when you get to corners that it will go into FPWV then when you leave the corner it goes back to TPV. Just so its more realistic as opposed to third personing corners. Although I prefer FPWV over FPV, keep it TPV and code the corners. The last thing I want is getting shot from my 9:00 clock. I couldn't see him because my view was locked into FPV. In TPV you can see that and act accordingly.

Massive accuracy and movement penalities for being hit.

I agree

Bleed out for torso hits after X amount of time.

I agree

Deafness when near an explosion, including inability to hear team mates over Xbox Live.

This would be interesting, RS did this with flashbangs.

Higer Recoil

The reloading of Automatic Assault Rifles (SAW) is so inaccurate. And the recoil too.

Massive accuracy penalty when moving

When shooting while moving? yes. Grenades should go farther too throwing on the move LOL.

Gun jamming

I like the idea but its not going to happen - may kill the fun factor.

Higher damage,head or upper torso shots kill in 1 shot.

Definetely. 1 shot in the head/neck area. It should take the mosts shots when shot in the arms or legs. Torso should be depending how far - they got vests. Better yets should drop when shot at the chest but able to get back up within seconds due to protective vests.

Bullet droppage and windage, also the need to zero your scope for snipers

It may kill the fun factor. I like calibrating the scop for snipers like at a firing range or something then take it out to the field.

Weapon scope sway

YES - even further that - "Feather the Trigger" xbox controllers the trigger has the ability to feather it until the round goes off - America's Army Rise of a soldier xbox 1

No team Ids

Bring back where you can toggle team IDs on or off on the fly.

And why do the enemies have the same uniforms as the good guys? I hate the fact that I seem to be shooting at a man with an US Army uniform. Code it like they do in America's Army. The enemies look like enemies on both sides.

No radar

YES

No Markers

You mean the waypoints. Hmm it has both downside and upside.

Weight considerations when picking equipement.

Definetely. I should run slower carrying a SAW.

Forced Multi Roles in team

Oh definetly. Alpha Squad, Bravo Squad, and they have their own respective classes -medic rifleman etc. Take a look at America's Army.

No tracer unless tracer ammo is picked

I think the military standard load out has tracers.

No Medic system

I disagree. Medic is a must. One medic per team. The medic has the ability to see wounded players in his Radar. Also can take shots more, but rifleman accuracy not as good. Also the ability to drag wounded.

Slower movement through water, bushes, mud etc

They had this in GR

Greater lethality radius on explosives

If your buddy dives on the explosives it would be nice to be able to cover up some of that lethality.

No reticule
This revolves a lot around first and third person point of view. Third person without reticules can be like cars without engines. They might be unrealistic but so is guessing where the bullet is going to hit. Reticules are a HUD element. Shanghai's Double Agent eliminated the light meter and added the stoplight system in order to make it more realistic, and thus put a lot of guesswork, and failure, and critically high unpopularity into what was the most important HUD element of the first three titles. A third person shooter that plans to have no reticule must be very well-constructed and planned or else it will hit the market severely crippled. Double Agent is a perfect example of failure to compensate HUD elimination. That is purely and only my opinion but I believe it to be very true in most cases. There are many solutions to eliminating the reticule, but they absolutely have to be well-constructed. And I'm sure that's doable. I'm indifferent on the matter. As long as the shooting system works smoothly and isn't broken, I'll accept it, whether it's iron sights or reticule or assisted aiming.

Slower running speed
I agree, and to add to that, I'd like to see a stamina system where not only can you run out of max speed, but be slowed down to a walk. Yes, even physically superior soldiers can run out of breath and energy. It takes a lot to wear them out, but it is possible, they are only human.

Massive accuracy and movement penalties for being hit.
My speculation: massive accuracy penalties for being hit in the arm, upper torso, maybe even lower torso to an extent, and massive movement penalties for being hit in the legs, and torso and groin area. No one is going to suffer reduced accuracy (besides shock, stress, and pain effects, which are only momentary) for being hit in the leg, and no one is going to suffer reduced speed or otherwise become mobility-crippled because of a shot to the arm (again, besides shock, stress, and pain effects).

Bleed out for torso hits after any given amount of time.
That wouldn't be so bad. But then, when you've got fifteen spots pouring out your chest and three out your helmet, you know they need to reduce the number of times you can take a hit


Deafness when near an explosion.
That is a penalty that would be really cool and I'm sure most gamers wouldn't complain. Realism is such a penalty but it is so worth it. And to add to that, I love the part in Desert Storm where those two guys (I haven't watched it in more than a year, sorry for the vagueness) are left behind and the support gunner fires off rounds right next to the other guy's ears, and he goes deaf for like half an hour. Weapons should add some, hardly any value at all, but some noise to the deaf scale, and purely based on how heavy your weapon-fire is. Don't make players pay massively for standing next to an M60, just a little bit, a slight ring or hollow sound for a few seconds, that's all.

Higher Recoil
I agree, especially the heavier weapons like for the support gunner role.

Massive accuracy penalty when moving
As has been said, it's not that hard to run and gun, especially for career soldiers like the Ghosts. I agree, but only for the greater end of the speed scale. I don't want my gun to shoot the wrong side of town when I'm just strafing at a snail's pace.

Gun jamming
Some have said it would take away the fun factor, I agree with that to an extent. If there is gun jamming, it should not happen randomly. People who take care of their guns shouldn't have problems. People who squeeze off five-round bursts over and over should be okay, whereas people who hold the trigger forever should be loaded down with jams. Also, people who crouch and then go prone shouldn't experience it as often as people who go for a running dive, as your gun slamming against the ground is a bit careless, and the barrel could take in dirt and gravel and stuff in the process. And if an RPG element is reintroduced, gun upgrades and care could be introduced as well. Don't go onto the battlefield without cleaning and oiling it first, Jimmy. Maybe that's a good idea, maybe it's a bad one. It's vaguely relative to the Forza Motorsport damage system. If you dive right into a brick wall and disfigure the entire front end of your rifle, and go on to the next mission without taking care of it, you might as well drop your weapon and start throwing rocks.

Higher damage, head or upper torso shots kill in one shot.
Yes. Absolutely.

Bullet droppage and windage, also the need to zero your scope for snipers.
That could be a very, very good addition, but limit it to Veteran Difficulty. Don't make the narbs on Easy Difficulty zero in their sn1p3rs or they may shoot to the left a bit, a lot.

Weapon scope sway
Depending on stance, of course. And also, hold the scope slightly away from your eye, depending on the scope. Isn't that how it works?

Weight considerations when picking equipment.
Yes. And it should have an effect on your stamina and top speed. A guy carrying fifty pounds is going to be able to swamp a guy carrying two hundred, easy.

Slower movement through water, bushes, and mud.
And also completely stopping depending if you're prone. A prone soldier trying to fight his way through a bush or crawl through three feet of water is not going to have any success. Bushes do have value and they do fight back, a prone guy is not going to be able to make it through one on his life unless it's just a pair of daisies. The kind of bushes that Ghost Recon puts in its environments are scraggly, sticky, stubborn and thick. But, I don't really see how mud matters unless it's up to your knees, which I have never encountered in the game.

Greater lethality radius on explosives.
Amen. Much greater please. The 'nades are weak compared to what MythBusters has proven to be the kill and injury radius of around forty-five yards (or maybe it was feet), and the C4 is flat-out embarrassing, no questions asked.

Some great replies in this thread. Hopefully the devs are reading this ( i'm sure they are ) and realise that the older fans of the series demand a more realistic approach to gameplay. Let the run & gunners have their arcade mode and give us tactical player the hardcore mode listed here.

I forgot to mention third and first person.

My viewpoint on point of view:

Basically, on a pro and con setting, I cannot find any positive aspects of a first person view compared to third person. Other than a feeling of being the soldier, making for a more realistic gameplay feeling, it otherwise is loaded with cons.

So here is my suggestion. Some will like it, some will say it's too complex or flatly unnecessary. I say it's just another potential suggestion, just like the rest.

One thing I've always hated about first person view is the slurred look sensitivity coupled with the narrow field of view. The field of view of a first person shooter in itself is exceptional, but look sensitivity hinders anything it's good for, because you just can't look around fast enough. Even on the most sensitive settings, no shooters come close to the flash speed that a person can turn his head and check his side or over his shoulder. And on top of that, setting the sensitivity to that level for the sake of being able to look around really quickly means that you're going to have sloppy and jittery aiming galore.

So I think there should be two modes, a slow look mode and a fast one. Fast mode would be looking with your eyes only, your gun would not follow. Switch to it to glance around quickly, check your sides, and over your shoulder; your body would not follow. That way you could switch to it while running forward, even still shooting forward if you want, and check around to make sure you don't have guys to your sides. It would be extremely sensitive so that you can do it very quickly and effectively and then get back into slow mode with hardly any time wasted. And switching back to slow look mode would make your character snap his gun in that general direction and realign his body with his line of sight.

Slow look mode would have normal sensitivity and would be just like how the games are now.

So, it might sound a little crazy at first, but just let me explain a bit.

The reason why your gun and body wouldn't follow you in fast look mode is because you're just doing quick checks. Your gun would stay aimed at the last place you were looking before switching to fast mode, and even if you were looking backwards over your shoulder, you would have to press backwards on the movement stick to walk in that direction. The look would need to be elastic, which means that letting off the stick would cause you to throw your head back at the last place you were looking at in slow mode. And if you switch back to slow mode without letting off the stick, your body realigns and your gun does a quick snap in that general direction.

Slow mode would obviously be slower, but more accurate, because your gun would always be in line. Snapping your gun would be quicker but much sloppier.

I can see it being very useful, and I can't think of any negativities of adding it. Questions, comments?

No reticule, never figured out what that means?

I'm from Sweden.

It's the HUD element that shows you where your bullets will hit.

A little + hovering out there in the middle of nowhere